Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Transfer Petition (Criminal) · 2026 INSC 1060
Where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and the parties reach a genuine, voluntary settlement, including on alimony, the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 powers to grant a mutual-consent divorce and close out all related litigation in one stroke, without requiring the usual statutory waiting period.
Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1061
In long-running, complex litigation involving apportioned government liabilities across states, the Supreme Court can use a mechanism like a retired-judge committee plus periodic compliance affidavits to bring genuine finality, including firm timelines, transparency obligations, and interest for delayed payment, rather than leaving matters open-ended.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1062
In an "as is where is" liquidation auction, a bidder who voluntarily accepts the auction terms cannot later resile from a forfeiture clause by citing regulatory caps or after-the-fact excuses for non-payment: courts will enforce the auction notice's own conditions.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8338-DB
Once someone is released from custody because the police failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest, the police cannot simply re-arrest them by adding new charges: a specific, court-supervised procedure with senior-officer accountability must be followed, or the re-arrest itself becomes illegal.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8308
In economic-offence cases, bail can still be granted where the method used to quantify the alleged financial evasion is not adequately justified, and where the apprehension of re-offending is speculative rather than evidence-based.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8323
A parole claim must be backed by a genuine, verifiable application to the competent jail authority: courts will scrutinise irregularities like an incomplete address, an unexplained thumb mark, or reliance on a mere friend's affidavit rather than close family.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8337
Courts can grant short, strictly time-bound interim bail purely on humanitarian/compassionate grounds (such as caring for a seriously ill family member), even while a case remains pending trial and an earlier bail plea has failed.
Bail Application · 2026:DHC:8312
Courts will not repeatedly re-examine a bail plea already rejected on merits unless the applicant can point to a genuine change in circumstances since the earlier order.
First Appeal from Order · 2026:DHC:8334
Under the no-fault compensation scheme for railway accidents, a valid ticket-holder injured while attempting to board a train, even carelessly, is generally entitled to compensation unless the railway can show a deliberate, conscious exposure to danger, not mere negligence.
6171 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreLegal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).
The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.
Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.
Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.
Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.
Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.
A 16-year-old boy (identified only as "X" to protect his identity, as required by law) was accused, along with another juvenile, of killing another boy by slitting his throat in May 2022 in Bihar; the weapon was allegedly recovered based on his disclosure. After he was found to be a juvenile, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a mandatory preliminary assessment for the heinous offence and, by majority, decided the Board itself would handle the case since it found the boy lacked the mental and physical capacity to understand the consequences of the offence, though the Presiding Magistrate dissented, finding he did understand his actions. The complainant (the deceased's mother) appealed, and the Sessions Court set aside the Board's order and directed that the juvenile be tried as an adult; the Patna High Court dismissed his challenge to that order. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the appellate court should have taken its own expert (psychologist/medical) assistance under Section 101(2) of the JJ Act rather than simply relying on the Board's record.
The Supreme Court held that an offence under Section 302 IPC (punishable with death or life imprisonment) is properly classified as a "heinous offence" under the JJ Act. It clarified that Section 101(2), which allows the Sessions Court (as appellate authority) to take assistance from experienced psychologists and medical specialists, is not mandatory in every case. The appellate court's power to seek such expert assistance is discretionary, to be exercised depending on the circumstances, and the JJ Board itself is not bound by any single expert opinion but must independently weigh all material (the Social Investigation Report, Social Background Report, witness statements, and expert opinion) against the four statutory parameters in Section 15. On the facts, the Court found the JJ Board's majority order was flawed because it relied solely on the medical/psychological expert opinion and made no mention at all of the Social Investigation Report or Social Background Report, including the juvenile's antecedents: a lapse the Sessions Court and High Court were right to correct in the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court found no error of law in the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal, while clarifying that its observations were confined to whether the Board properly considered the assessment material, and would have no bearing on the actual trial.
When deciding whether a juvenile accused of a serious crime should be tried as an adult, the Juvenile Justice Board cannot rely on a single expert's opinion alone. It must independently and visibly weigh all the prescribed material, including social background and investigation reports, and a decision that ignores those inputs is legally vulnerable even if it favours the juvenile.
